Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

By that logic Maxwell should have gotten off scot free for attacking the Cardassians in The Wounded.

Really? I don't recall anyone saying during that episode that the Cardassians constituted "an intolerable threat to the security of the Federation".

It was implied by the fact that they were gearing up for war again which would put way more lives at risk than attacking a starship would.

On an unrelated note what is it with people refusing to accept that planets are big. They are not small towns they are very very big. In fact they are so big that starships are tiny specks compared to them. So it would be nice if people would realize that there is a chance that said planets might just have very large populations that would be very hard to move as quickly as you seem to THINK can be moved in Star Trek.

For that matter, why assume that because the planet is big that the colony must also be big? Or that Sisko didn't do his homework and know with reasonable certainty that the Maquis should be able to evacuate in time provided they chose to do so?

And the comparison to Maxwell is still invalid if you assume a "threat to the security of the Federation" is a legal phrasing rather than something that anyone can just throw around, since as far as I know it's never brought up in the episode.

__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"

And the comparison to Maxwell is still invalid if you assume a "threat to the security of the Federation" is a legal phrasing rather than something that anyone can just throw around, since as far as I know it's never brought up in the episode.

Except, as I already stated, Sisko admits later in the episode that he did not receive approval from Starfleet for his plan to use WMDs against the colony, so his claim that Eddington was a "threat to the security of the Federation" is coming from an obviously biased individual, who would not have the authority to make such a claim in the first place. If Sisko suddenly decided that Dukat was a "threat to the security of the Federation", could he start using WMDs against Cardassian colonies until Dukat surrenders?

For that matter, why assume that because the planet is big that the colony must also be big?

I don't know why should we assume the colony is small.

Even then the only time the logistics of moving a colony were mentioned was in TNG and apparently it needs a specific kind of ship as Picard needed 3 weeks to get an evacuation ship for said planet and there was only one settlement so even if the colony is small there is no grantee that moving it would be doable in two hours seeing as we don't know what ships they had.

Which is something that should be considered when talking about how hard it is to move a population from a planet.

Or that Sisko didn't do his homework and know with reasonable certainty that the Maquis should be able to evacuate in time provided they chose to do so?

Because he didn't show any knowledge of the planet what so ever seeing as he had to ask Kira to find the closest one. there wasn't a whole lot of research shown or even alluded to there.

Also am I the only one disturbed by Star Trek fans agreeing with the use of biological weapons against a civilian population based on the logic that just by living in the DMZ a person is a terrorist.

In the end I think this comes down to us simply not having enough information.You ask why we should assume the colony is small, I ask why we should assume it's large. Neither of us has compelling evidence.

I'd be a lot more disturbed by what Sisko did if it didn't essentially "balance the scales", and I'll admit I grow increasingly less disturbed by it the more I see forum posters in general accusing Sisko of "poisoning a planet" while glossing over the particulars.

That said, we're of course talking about an episode of a television show rather than something that actually happened. That limits my threshold of investment.

__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"

And the comparison to Maxwell is still invalid if you assume a "threat to the security of the Federation" is a legal phrasing rather than something that anyone can just throw around, since as far as I know it's never brought up in the episode.

Except, as I already stated, Sisko admits later in the episode that he did not receive approval from Starfleet for his plan to use WMDs against the colony, so his claim that Eddington was a "threat to the security of the Federation" is coming from an obviously biased individual, who would not have the authority to make such a claim in the first place. If Sisko suddenly decided that Dukat was a "threat to the security of the Federation", could he start using WMDs against Cardassian colonies until Dukat surrenders?

Yes, Sisko claims to Dax that he didn't receive approval for his specific plan. That by no means precludes the notion that he didn't receive some sort of approval.

It's ITPM all over again, where Starfleet may apparently approve of a plan in general terms without necessarily approving of the specifics.

__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"

Or that Sisko didn't do his homework and know with reasonable certainty that the Maquis should be able to evacuate in time provided they chose to do so?

Because he didn't show any knowledge of the planet what so ever seeing as he had to ask Kira to find the closest one. there wasn't a whole lot of research shown or even alluded to there.

Yeah, there's pretty much no chance that Sisko knew much of anything about the planet. The scene is clearly meant to convey the idea that he just picked the closest colony, at random.

Also am I the only one disturbed by Star Trek fans agreeing with the use of biological weapons against a civilian population based on the logic that just by living in the DMZ a person is a terrorist.

No, you're not the only one. I've always considered this one of DS9's weaker moments.

If you are going to go down this road, and have your lead character DO something like this, then follow it through. Have some consequences. If you're just going to reset-button things back to normal after the ep, then don't even have this happen in the first place. Isn't this what a bunch of people here (myself included) talk about when we blast VOY? That too often, something really big/serious/holy &%$#/etc would happen, something that WOULD have consequences, and it's all just brushed aside by the end of the ep, with plenty of time to hit that big reset button for the next ep? Why should DS9 not be held accountable when it does the exact same thing?

Yes, it's true that no one on the bridge "protested" (beyond clearly being shocked/uncomfortable with the order), which could also make them "just as guilty", as some have suggested. My answer to that is: quite possibly, that's correct, and the fact that - again - there were no consequences, is just bad writing. Someone SHOULD have spoken out, Worf SHOULD have refused to fire... SOMETHING like that absolutely needed to happen, else there should have been serious consequences not just for Sisko, but for other characters as well. The fact that none of this happened at all is what makes it a bad ending to an otherwise interesting episode.

DonIago wrote:

In the end I think this comes down to us simply not having enough information.You ask why we should assume the colony is small, I ask why we should assume it's large. Neither of us has compelling evidence.

I'd be a lot more disturbed by what Sisko did if it didn't essentially "balance the scales", and I'll admit I grow increasingly less disturbed by it the more I see forum posters in general accusing Sisko of "poisoning a planet" while glossing over the particulars.

"They did it first"? Seriously? Why does that matter at ALL? Poisoning the atmosphere of a planet in the DMZ with people living on it in order to catch one terrorist either IS OK or IS NOT OK. That the Maquis did the same thing to the Cardassians first is irrelevant. Of course they did. They're fucking TERRORISTS! That's why we're trying to catch them! That doesn't make it ok for Starfleet to do it.

Plus, another aspect of the resolution of the ep that plain stinks: it undercuts the entire reason for the Maquis and all related storylines to even exist. It completely shoots all of it in the face.

The WHOLE POINT of the Maquis coming to exist was the idea that these people had had their homes, their lands, ripped out from under them by a Federation that signed these planets away in a treaty. Rather than accept this and leave, they stayed, knowing what the consequences could be, and when these consequences came (disgruntled Cardassian extremists, who may or may not have any support from their government, attacking them because they just plain don't want them around), they fought back, defending their homes, and eventually forming the Maquis.

Yet at the end of this ep, the Maquis poison at least one Cardassian colony. Then Sisko poisons the Maquis colony. Then they just... switch. "Welp, good thing the poison used by the Maquis isn't dangerous to Humans, and vice versa for the poison Sisko used (HOT DAMN that's convenient, by the way!), because now we can just swap planets!"

I thought that no one wanting to give up their home was the WHOLE REASON FOR THIS ENTIRE STORY ARC TO EXIST?!

The entire thing is just a mess.

That said, we're of course talking about an episode of a television show rather than something that actually happened.

Of course we are. Everyone knows it's all fiction. No one here is a complete idiot. Why even point this out?

That limits my threshold of investment.

That's a copout. "Well, it's not that important, I mean geez, don't get so worked up." You're here, in this thread, you're arguing, and your "threshold" is apparently high enough to allow six posts by you to show up in the "Topic Review" column while I write this post. Your level of investment in this thread is rather high.

DonIago wrote:

Yes, Sisko claims to Dax that he didn't receive approval for his specific plan. That by no means precludes the notion that he didn't receive some sort of approval.

It's ITPM all over again, where Starfleet may apparently approve of a plan in general terms without necessarily approving of the specifics.

Your own example defeats your argument. In ITPM, the writers went out of their way to tell us that Sisko DOES have approval for the deception plan. In FTY, they similarly went out of their way to tell us that he didn't get approval for this plan. In addition, we already knew that he wasn't even supposed to be on the case. Starfleet had booted him because they were worried that the personal aspect of what happened between him and Eddington would affect his judgement. And they were right.

The intent of the writers/producers of the ep is clrear: Starfleet didn't sanction ANYTHING Sisko did after taking him off the case.

"They did it first"? Seriously? Why does that matter at ALL? Poisoning the atmosphere of a planet in the DMZ with people living on it in order to catch one terrorist either IS OK or IS NOT OK. That the Maquis did the same thing to the Cardassians first is irrelevant.

Actually, it's very relevant. By attacking those Maquis colonies, Sisko ensured that they would have to move somewhere else - to the Cardassian colonies that were first attacked. Like I said: No one was left homeless, there were no casualties, as a result of Sisko's actions.

There are exactly two possibilities here:

- Eddington attacks, and Sisko does nothing. Many Cardassians are killed.

Actually, it's very relevant. By attacking those Maquis colonies, Sisko ensured that they would have to move somewhere else - to the Cardassian colonies that were first attacked. Like I said: No one was left homeless, there were no casualties, as a result of Sisko's actions.

There are exactly two possibilities here:

- Eddington attacks, and Sisko does nothing. Many Cardassians are killed.

So tell me, why isn't a scenario in which no one dies, infinitely preferable to a scenario in which there ARE deaths?

Wait...how do we know nobody died? More importantly, why is it that when Eddington attacks, and Sisko does nothing, people die, but when Sisko responds in kind, nobody dies?

The Maquis scrambled to try to evacuate said colony, but there's no guarantee they were successful or that everybody was extracted. Considering the CGI suggested that the chemical or biological agent seemed to be rapidly spreading through the atmosphere, the assumption can be made that yes, people did die, considering how difficult it might be to get shuttles to remote homes and communities.

More importantly, Sisko is a Starfleet officer, and as he stated in "Rules of Engagement", Starfleet officers aren't even allowed to put civilians in potential danger to save themselves...ad yet it's suddenly okay to put enemy non-combatants in danger to capture one man? Starfleet is supposed to be the ones who go out of their way to take the high road. They're not supposed to play dirty.

So tell me, why isn't a scenario in which no one dies, infinitely preferable to a scenario in which there ARE deaths?

Wait...how do we know nobody died?

Because we would have heard about it if anyone had.

More importantly, why is it that when Eddington attacks, and Sisko does nothing, people die, but when Sisko responds in kind, nobody dies?

Because Eddington would have wiped out the Cardassian colonies, complete with their inhabitants. After Sisko did the same thing to the Maquis, the two sides simply exchanged colony sites. If Eddington had gone unchecked, the Cardassian colonists would have had nowhere to move to, and would have died.

Assuming Cardassian lives count, of course.

More importantly, Sisko is a Starfleet officer, and as he stated in "Rules of Engagement", Starfleet officers aren't even allowed to put civilians in potential danger to save themselves...ad yet it's suddenly okay to put enemy non-combatants in danger to capture one man? Starfleet is supposed to be the ones who go out of their way to take the high road. They're not supposed to play dirty.

EDDINGTON WAS A STARFLEET OFFICER AS WELL, GADDAMMIT! What gives HIM the right to turn traitor?!? If anyone here played dirty, it was him!

__________________
"But here you are, in the ninth
Two men out and three men on
Nowhere to look but inside
Where we all respond to PRESSURE!" - Billy Joel

"They did it first"? Seriously? Why does that matter at ALL? Poisoning the atmosphere of a planet in the DMZ with people living on it in order to catch one terrorist either IS OK or IS NOT OK. That the Maquis did the same thing to the Cardassians first is irrelevant.

Actually, it's very relevant. By attacking those Maquis colonies, Sisko ensured that they would have to move somewhere else - to the Cardassian colonies that were first attacked. Like I said: No one was left homeless, there were no casualties, as a result of Sisko's actions.

Because uprooting and moving to a new world is SO EASY AND PAINLESS. I mean, it's not like a bunch of colonists not being willing to do exactly that was the basis for a big story arc, or anything.

Besides, Sisko didn't attack those colonies TO balance the scales. That was basically luck. He only did it to flush Eddington, and he only wanted to do THAT because he wanted revenge. Not only is the action of using this weapon against a civilian population deplorable, but his motivations were questionable, as well.

There are exactly two possibilities here:

- Eddington attacks, and Sisko does nothing. Many Cardassians are killed.

Sisko DOESN'T use WMDs against a civilian population, and he & Starfleet find some other way to stop Eddington.

So tell me, why isn't a scenario in which no one dies, infinitely preferable to a scenario in which there ARE deaths?

Of course that statement is true in a vacuum. But you're intentionally stripping away the context in order to vindicate Sisko. If you strip away the context in a different manner, you get:

"So tell me, why is a scenario in which a Starfleet officer uses a biological weapon against a civilian population acceptable?"

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

commanderkai wrote:

Wait...how do we know nobody died?

Because we would have heard about it if anyone had.

We would? How do you know this?

More importantly, Sisko is a Starfleet officer, and as he stated in "Rules of Engagement", Starfleet officers aren't even allowed to put civilians in potential danger to save themselves...ad yet it's suddenly okay to put enemy non-combatants in danger to capture one man? Starfleet is supposed to be the ones who go out of their way to take the high road. They're not supposed to play dirty.

EDDINGTON WAS A STARFLEET OFFICER AS WELL, GADDAMMIT! What gives HIM the right to turn traitor?!? If anyone here played dirty, it was him!

Uh... yeah?

That isn't even relevant. Yes, Eddington was a Starfleet officer. Yes, he turned traitor. Yes, he played dirty. Those are all true.

None of that in any way justifies Sisko using this weapon against a civilian target. Yes, Eddington played dirty, but he'd already turned terrorist by that time. His actions are not justifiable, but they are at least logical, given his character; Sisko's are neither.

commanderkai is right to cite "Rules of Engagement." Sisko flat-out tells Worf that he skidded by, and was just lucky that the ship turned out to be empty (and the whole thing turned out to be an extremely circuitous plan by the Klingons to discredit Worf and Starfleet). He reminds Worf that Starfleet officers simply do not put civilian lives in danger. "We really gotta catch Eddington" doesn't strike me adequate justification to throw that out the window.

The episode even has Sisko SAY "Maybe it's time I became the villain" before taking this action! So if they really wanted to go down this road, then DO IT. Have the ep proceed exactly as it did, and then have serious consequences befall Sisko & crew for their actions.

If you're not willing to face the music, don't pull the trigger (that being directed at the show's creators, in this instance).

And this is all in addition to what I alluded to earlier: that the incredibly convenient, planet-swapping, "this biological agent affects Cardassians but not Federation races, and this other one does the exact opposite! Incredible!" scenario is pretty stupid anyway, and undercuts the entire Maquis story arc.

The concept that no one died in either Eddington or Sisko's attack is incredibly naive.

They had a window of a few hours at best to evacuate entire planets. Even assuming both the Cardassians(who can't even muster up a defense against the Klingons) and the Maquis(who despite given a free hand are still having a hard time against the Cardassians) can muster up enough ships(which is highly unlikely) to evacuate the thousands, if not millions of colonists, are you going to somehow notify every single person and be able to move them to a space ship?

Look at Hurricane Katrina... in a day in age where there's enough individual and public transportation, everyone couldn't get out of town even with a full day's notice. So even if both the Cardassians and Maquis can magically pull enough ships for an evacuation out of their asses, are they seriously going to be able to notify and move every single person off the planet in a couple hours? Unlikely. Tons of dead Maquis and Cardassians in that episode. Sisko and Eddington should have been sharing a jail cell.

Maybe. If nobody on said Maquis colony died, they must have been filled to the brim with space-worthy craft and enough transporters to get isolated individuals out of danger. Considering that Sisko didn't exactly check to see if said colony had any sort of decent evacuation infrastructure in place, it was blind luck.

Because Eddington would have wiped out the Cardassian colonies, complete with their inhabitants. After Sisko did the same thing to the Maquis, the two sides simply exchanged colony sites. If Eddington had gone unchecked, the Cardassian colonists would have had nowhere to move to, and would have died.

Assuming Cardassian lives count, of course.

Except when Eddington attacked, you see him ignoring said evac ships up until the moment he disables one to make Sisko choose between him and the evacuees. If this was an attempt at genocide, no doubt they could have found a weapon to instantly kill everyone. Where is this line that the Cardassian colonists would have nowhere to go if Eddington remained unchecked? Last I checked, Eddington was targeting colonies in the DMZ. Cardassian space itself was not targeted. There was no attempt to target Cardassia Prime or its other primary worlds.

Also, of course Cardassian lives count. Eddington is not innocent in this episode. What he did was beyond the pale, and he was lucky he didn't have the entire Cardassian Union out for his ass. However, Sisko is not in the right because Eddington is in the wrong.

EDDINGTON WAS A STARFLEET OFFICER AS WELL, GADDAMMIT! What gives HIM the right to turn traitor?!? If anyone here played dirty, it was him!

And he turned traitor, betrayed the oath to the Federation and Starfleet. He's terrorist, plain and simple, and he should be arrested and locked away forever for his atrocity, or even handed to the Cardassians for execution.

However, him playing dirty doesn't give Sisko any right to play dirty as well. The Cardassians play dirty (see "Tribunal", "The Circle", Dukat's attempted blackmail in "Civil Defence" as examples). The Romulans play dirty (see "Visionary"), the Klingons play dirty (see "The Way of the Warrior"). Sisko, in probably one of the best episodes of the franchise, feels guilt for being involved in the murder of a pro-Dominion Romulan senator, when he gets approval for playing dirty. However, when he uses WMDs against the Maquis? He makes a snarky comment to Dax about "not getting approval" for his WMD plan. His desire for revenge against Eddington is so great, he's willing to put thousands, if not millions of lives at risk, while in the season before, he rails Worf for firing on a civilian ship decloaking in a battlefield (aka something WAY more understandable) and in the next season, is trying to justify his involvement with killing maximum 5-6 (the forger, the senator, and the bodyguards) people to bring the Romulans into the war.

I mean, can you imagine a modern military commander using WMDs, or even high yield explosives (MOABs, fuel air bombs, etc) against enemy non-combatants just to capture one ruthless terrorist? Do you really think there would not be consequences?